The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

10 Dec 2016 12:16:08pm

Text

PreviousMessage

JBI will not answer all your points. 1.and 2. are rather meaningless - to me at least. I don't know what point you are making. 5. is answered above. 6 is just weird.

Point 3. If I were to grant you that every planet in the entire observable universe were comprised of nothing but the essential nucleotides, amino acids and trace elements essential for life, it would still be impossible for life as we know it to form. Therefore saying that RNA has been replicated in the lab is entirely pointless.

Point 4. The process of diversification takes some explaining. In the creationist view, the original animal ancestors had an inherent ability within their DNA to foster diversification. This is indeed through recombination of genes (genetic drift), natural selection, and probably some mutation, albeit facilitated, i.e. controlled. However their progeny progressively lose this ability to diversify as they each retain only a subset of the original gene pool. This process is seen in modern dogs, which are known to have had a common wolf-like ancestor. The more 'pure' a breed, the less genetically fit it is, and the less scope for further variation. For example the original dog was capable of producing offspring with long or short hair. Modern dogs generally are stuck with offspring having the same characteristics - unless they are cross-bred.

Over time, genetic diversity is lost and genetic fitness reduced because of the extinction of some of the breed lines.

There is also the issue that mutations accumulate in vertebrates at around 60 to 100 mutations per individual. this cannot be eliminated through natural selection, thus reducing genetic fitness in the entire population.